Previous surveys by the Administrator Appraisal Program (AAP) have consisted of a short questionnaire mailed to all faculty members on an annual basis, seeking input on each member’s dean and all campus-wide administrators. The revised AAP conducted this year was different in several respects. First, in order to provide more in-depth feedback, the number of administrators under review was limited. Faculty had the opportunity to provide AAP feedback to the review/ reappointment process when the president, chancellor, vice chancellor or the dean of their school or college was undergoing a third- or fifth-year review. Second, faculty were requested to complete and return a new BFA Satisfaction Survey addressing campus-wide concerns such as salary and benefit programs. The Satisfaction Survey contained 16 questions addressing areas of institutional support, governance and creating community, and salary and compensation. Responses were solicited using a satisfaction scale that ranged from 1 to 5, in which 1 = very dissatisfied and 5 = very satisfied (the ratings in between were interpreted as 2 = somewhat dissatisfied, 3 = satisfied, 4 = more than satisfied), plus a "Don’t Know" option. Reflecting the direct relevance of the survey to faculty concerns were the relatively small percentages of "Don't Know" responses; for only two questions did the "Don’t Know" response appear on 20% or more of the questionnaires.

In an attempt to address the problem of low response rates in previous years, the AAP Committee sent the questionnaire to all faculty designated as eligible by the BFA, and then analyzed the responses from four overlapping groups among the recipients. The first group of recipients was all UCB faculty (313 responses). The second group was a random sample of 286 recipients (110 responses) from among all UCB faculty members. The third group was the 47 chairs and directors of A&S units (33 responses). The fourth group was made up of those schools and colleges outside of A&S which had a response rate high enough to be representative (76 responses).

The AAP Committee had agreed, on the advice of several faculty who specialize in survey methods, that a 60% return rate would be needed for a representative statistical study. We had hoped that three telephone promptings would lead to an adequate response level on the part of the large random sample, which we had planned to make the focus of our analysis. Unfortunately, the response rate fell short of the necessary rate for a representative sample, with response rates of 30% for All Raters and 37% for the Random Sample.

The responders from among the Chairs and Directors of A&S constituted 72% of that population; they therefore formed a statistically sound survey in the sense that we can place confidence in these results as fairly representing the opinions of this group. In order to have results from other schools and colleges included as well, we combined the results of the schools and colleges which had response rates over 60%. These were Law, 63% (33 responses); Libraries, 60% (26 responses); and Education, 86% (25 responses). The response rates for the Random Sample and All Raters groups (hereafter referred to as RS and All) are too low to assure that they are representative; however, the results are so close to the more representative samples that we have chosen to present them here.

The AAP Committee hopes to provide a picture of faculty satisfaction in three broad areas of university life. To do so, we considered three general categories in evaluating responses:

Strengths to Build On represent areas in which a substantial majority of the faculty report themselves highly satisfied (60% and higher 4 or 5 ratings).

Issues to be Mindful Of were areas in which the majority of the respondents judged themselves satisfied or better, but a significant minority of respondents reported being less than satisfied (25% - 39% ratings of 1 or 2).

Areas that Need Improvement were areas in which a significant fraction of the faculty were dissatisfied (over 40% 1 or 2 ratings).

All groups of faculty view their teaching responsibilities highly favorably - this is an area of strength on which the University can build. However, both teaching resources and departmental support services fall into the category of issues to be mindful of. Space and facilities are, however, judged in need of improvement; close to or over 50% of faculty members in each group report dissatisfaction.

Norlin library facilities received mixed reviews, with faculty in A&S and Library rating them as needing improvement, while others were less dissatisfied but judged this an area to be mindful of. By contrast, Norlin library services were considered an area to be mindful of by A&S responders, but were rated higher by other subsamples. These ratings may reflect the lower dependence of some schools on Norlin facilities and services.

Areas related to research activities, support for soliciting outside money and support from the university for research and creative work, were rated as ones to be mindful of. However, over 20% of faculty indicated that they did not have sufficient knowledge to respond to the question about fundraising.

An area of strength to build on is the faculty’s satisfaction with their relationships with colleagues. Well over 60% in all groups reported themselves highly satisfied.

Perhaps reflecting the large size of the School of Arts and Sciences, responses from that faculty indicate a need for improvement in progress in shared governance, while raters in other groups indicate this is an area to be mindful of. Overall, a high proportion of raters (over 20%) chose Don’t Know as their response to this question.

The university’s efforts to recruit and retain a diverse faculty and a diverse student body are additional areas to be mindful of.

Four areas were addressed: the current health plan, other benefits (including retirement), salary relative to peers at other research institutions, and equitable distribution of salary.

The current health plan and salary are areas of faculty discontent. Fully two-thirds or more of each group reported dissatisfaction with salary and 49% or more were dissatisfied with their current health plan.

All groups except the A&S chairs rated other benefits as an area to be mindful of. All groups except the A&S chairs rated the equitable distribution of salary as needing improvement, while the chairs rated this issue as one to be mindful of.

Three patterns stand out in these results. Faculty members are generally appreciative of their colleagues and of their teaching responsibilities. These are strengths on which the faculty and the university can build.

There is great concern about lack of university resources, whether they be for carrying out our work (teaching resources, support for soliciting outside money, library, space and facilities, support for research and creative work) or for personal compensation (health plan, salaries).

Finally, issues of community that are ranked as needing improvement are shared governance and equitable distribution of salary, while the faculty ranks issues of recruitment and retention of a diverse student body and faculty as ones to be mindful of (with the exception that the group of administrators identifiable in this survey, A&S chairs and directors, were not dissatisfied with efforts regarding a diverse faculty).

The survey question on teaching resources was quite broad. It is difficult, therefore, to make specific recommendations about priority areas that might be targeted for improvement. For this reason, while we do not recommend delaying attention to this issue, we do recommend that the survey next year include questions that permit more detailed assessment of teaching resource needs.